benjii

If goal difference is level does it go down to post-hits? I thought it was corners?

I heard it was this bloke:

Lol - indeed it does! My mistake.

Nonsense. It's nay'sayers like this that are responsible for most of the problems in the world.

There will be a negative pledge in the loan documents which prohibits it, so unless they consent, they effectively do have the right to block it by threatening to take action upon the default if the negative pledge is breached. My understanding is that the overdraft is unsecured. Probably why Lowe feels justified in calling the bank "irresponsible" and why their actions seem so strange at this moment in time. Your other points are correct in as much as the banks could have come to an agreement regarding a priority position (and indeed if Barclays do have security, most certainly will have). I agree that usually you would expect all the companies in the group to be part of the security structure. Given, however, that the administrators seem pretty confident of avoiding the points deduction, something leads me to believe that this might not be the case.

I can't believe some of you lot. You're the same people responsible for Allen walking away and IMO are more at fault than the stay-aways and the plastics. Carlos, I know you'll be reading this so can I just say on behalf of all the true Saints fans, we welcome you wholeheartedly.

Whether it's a public company or not is utterly irelevant IMO. Why do you think it's significant?

So what's the problem? If people don't want to go they won't and he won't get any money. If they do want to go they will and he will get some money.

Barclays only supply the overdraft. Aviva wouldn't have let them take an all-encompassing debenture. To the best of knowledge, Aviva are the only secured creditor and quite what that security covers is unknown. I have indicated elsehwere that noises almost seem to suggest the loan is provided on limited recourse but that seems quite odd. If anyone wants to check the point re Barclays they need to have a look on the company charges register.

Those are the rates charged by the firm, not recouped by the individuals who work for it.

You would, usually, expect Norwich Union to have security over all the subsidiary companies so ultimately the footy club money is theirs should the security be enforced. You would also often find a cash-sweep mechanism in commercial loans to a group of companies. However, the recent noises coming out of the club/SLH do seem to suggest to me that the Loan Note is on some sort of limited recourse basis.

What you on about? We're too good to go down and will walk this league next year.

Why? Where is it now?

Although funilly enough he played in two different roles last night, following substitutions, and was just as good in a withdrawn midfield role. I prefer seeing him further forward though. I agree. I hope we keep him for next season.

His first duty is to try to find a way for the company to continue as a going concern. If that can't be done his duty turns to maximising return for the creditors.

Can I just say, that there is no way in the world that Nineteen Canteen is Lord Marland. I heard Lord Marland on the radio once and he came across as fairly intelligent and articulate.

One point that is important to note is that Aviva actually seem to have been supportive and have little interest in accelerating the Loan Notes. I see no reason why, if a potential investor can show sufficient proof of funds, they would not allow the Loan Note to exist on its current terms. It is designed to be a long-term debt. It only requires something like £2m per year in repayments. The notion that a new investor MUST stump up £20m or some other lesser but large capital sum to Aviva is probably not true. Similarly, the overdraft with Barclays is unsecured I believe? Again, any new investor will be in a pretty strong position with respect to cuting a deal with them.

I feel, having taken a lot of stick this season, he deserves a thread for what was an excellent performance last night. I don't want to discuss whether the stick was justified or not but simply urge him to maintain the level of commitment, effort and composure he showed last night. If the rest of the team can up their performance to a similar level we will have no problem staying up.

Sadly, Surman had no problem whatsoever getting it over the wall!

Doubt that would have appealed to Lowe, Wilde and the Meals on Wheels brigade.

The bank would have absolutely no say whatsoever in day to day operational decisions.

Yep, he was the best player on the pitch by a long way IMO.

?

Well, yes! They could just download the annual report pdf off the SFC site! As for the relationship between SFC and the debt, that can easily be ascertained by a look at SFC Limited's charges register on Companies House. You don't need "Forensic Accountants" to do that. If the League wants to **** money up the wall though, let's let them! I doubt any forensic accountants are doing anything as a matter of urgency. As others have said, this is just a delaying tactic. We have three matches between now and this time next week. They will be hoping we are virtually down by then.

We could play hard-ball and simply refuse to give their accountants access. "Your rule says, 'x', make a decision".